Nope. But they did try to get their hands on additional oil fields that happened to be in other sovereign countries. Countries that the US has had strong ties with.
You want to claim this is all about oil, fine. There's more than a grain of truth to that. But you're going to have to pick up all the baggage - not just pick out the few pieces that fit your ideology.
I find it ironic that the Slashdot community makes fun of his "tubes" analogy, considering that every network technician I've ever known has, at some point in his or her life, used the word "pipe" to describe an internet connection.
I just had a helldesk guy hanging out in my office complaining about one of the users. She was telling him how she had used a hard drive for a few years before getting a new one. Then she was moved to that one only to be told to use others. So now she uses multiple hard drives around various locations as she moves from office to office. She was asking if she could get a hard drive she could carry around with her. Turns out, she's referring to the entire computer as a "hard drive" and was actually wanting a laptop.
Just because you use a term, doesn't mean you're getting it right.
Which I doubt he'll care too much about, considering that he's 85. I don't know about you, but if I were 85 where the current life expectancy is in the high 70's, and I had a lifetime pension from the Senate (which he'll likely get to keep now that the conviction has been thrown out), I wouldn't care what anyone thought about my reputation. More than likely, I wouldn't live long enough for it to matter much.
Just to play Devil's Advocate - I'll suggest another possibility. People of power like to think in terms of immortality. You buy a mausoleum. You establish institutions. And if you're a public servant, you consider your "legacy." You want history to record you as a person who stood out in your time in office; even an individual who did great things. Stevens has already had a taste of history (often he's noted as being the longest sitting Republican in the Senate). Surely he would have preferred it if people remembered him that way, not for corruption.
But, let's remember who started it, and not place *all* of the blame on the opponent.
And while we're tracking "blame", let's keep in mind that the whole reason we're involved in Iraq is the Iraqi government. Or, at least, the old government.
Which then I suppose opens the discussion to Iran, the old USSR, and the Cold War.
We'll get to see for ourselves. Or not, since if they go under, who is going to report it? AP news?
Who will report it? Slashdot. TWiT. Ars Technica. Digg. Dozens of other "new media" news sites. Dozens of bloggers and microbloggers.
The only question is whether they will be using the last story from AP or not. If they do, it will likely be for the novelty and historical importance of the event. Not because AP is the only source of news.
It is a common misconception that privacy laws don't apply to places and people viewable from a public location. You also seem to confuse Google's satellite imagery with their Street View service.
Actually - I'm not confusing the two. I understand they're different aspects provided via their mapping service. However, that's the only way I can think that Google has an image of my backyard. I'm curious as to how Google is getting an image of the poster sunning on their deck without a satellite.
As for the misconception that privacy laws don't apply - the devil's in the details. Using a telephoto lense to photograph someone in their bedroom tends to run afoul of privacy laws. Photographing someone's front door is very unlikely to be. I'd question whether someone's yard, with a clear view of a public street, would be reasonably considered "private". I'd advise putting up a fence. Of course - this is in the US. UK laws are likely very different.
What's reasonable is people not wishing to have photographic records of their private moments and private properties posted on Google without their permission. What is the purpose of Street View?
I'm all for that. But property that's viewable from public streets isn't THAT private. And you're mistaken if you think your moment is private when you have it out in public.
Is the purpose to have a photo of every front door and every backyard posted on the Internet?
Do they have a picture of your backyard? They don't have a picture of mine. They do, though, have a picture of my front door. And they have a picture of my roof. If you squint at the satellite photo - you might be able to pick out my deck.
No, the goal - according to Google anyway - is to provide driving directions. Now, who in the world needs to see a photo of me sunbathing on my deck to get from point "A" to point "B"? Street View is unnecessarily detailed for the stated purpose. Thus, Google is either throwing money to the wind collecting useless information, or it has reasons other than those it made public. Take your pick.
I'll go with "wants to have detailed information." Which is perfectly fine. Right up to the point that they're actually invading my privacy - not just pricking my perceived privacy bubble (which is going on here).
How does Streetview help with directions? I've been going out to meet friends at a restaurant before. I pop up the address in Streetview. Come to find out, the location is a strip mall on a busy intersection. I couldn't read the sign but I could identify what the strip-mall (and it's sign) looked like. I knew to get over and jump in to the mall parkinglot without driving past, looking for a restaurant that's hard to see from the road. I've also given directions and a screenshot of my house to friends via streetview ("it looks like this, except it has a blue car in the driveway - oh and move the view down the street a bit and you'll see how the intersection works and the crazy mailbox I told you about").
And, just for giggles, I also checked out my old neighborhood I used to live in. The old house looks very similar. Trees are bigger. But I couldn't see in to the backyard to see if the fishpond I put in is still there. I certainly have no idea if the current owners sunbath back there.
Preston makes it sound so simple and easy to accept. Who among us aren't concerned with information security and the Internet? Preston lists a laundry list of issues that plague the Internet today. Who wouldn't support battling these issues?
The question, however, is who is going to support it. Preston claims that's what the CyberSafety Constituency would do. But do their supporters understand that?
Take some time to view the ICANN mailing list to register comments on this proposal. Note the emails sent in support. Then note how many of Preston's laundry list issues are mentioned. You'll be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't directly (or imply) one single issue: pornography.
Go ahead and look at that list's thread index . It'll help make the form letters stand out. Pornography becomes even more apparent.
Preston claims that this is not an issue of the Mormon church. However, if you look at the proposed initial membership, two things tend to form the familiar pattern: ties to the Mormon Church and pornography.
I'm not sure who Preston thinks she's fooling. Us, or the various people who have written in to support her proposal.
From her most infamous, and probably well-connected, supporter:
In Support Of Cyber Safety Contstituency
* To: cyber-safety-petition@xxxxxxxxx
* Subject: In Support Of Cyber Safety Contstituency
* From: Ralph Yarro
* Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:22:32 -0700
It is amazing that it has taken so long to add a voice of family values, decency, and children's rights to the ICANN family. I am Grateful to all those within ICANN that have recognized and hopefully support this much needed Charter.
Though far from balanced, this gesture will serve as a signal that ICANN cares about the hundreds of millions of Internet users who want to see families needs and concerns considered in the formation of policies and representation.
Please approve this most important voice for decency. It is an important step in the right direction. Thank you in advance.
Ralph Yarro
It's a pitty that even Ralph Yarro, who's business is technology, is so badly misled. That is, if you believe Preston.
...all I wanted the internet for was to order a stupid computer book that's not available at my local bookstore... why do I have to be subjected to worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, porn and the base nature of humanity!?
If you're unable to go and order a book online because of all this baggage, you've done something drastically wrong. I do it all the time.
Why do you get exposed to all this baggage? Because when you go online, you are exposed to a world of humans (not entirely the whole world - not everyone has 'Net access). It's all fine that all you want to do is do your thing. But all they want to do is their thing as well. It's a competitive world.
You can walk in down the street in any major metropolis and run in to the same problem; muggers, pan-handlers, con-men. You'll potentially bump in to the desperate and the reckless. The difference between, say, New York and the Internet is that you can only do so much with the laws of physics while you can almost entirely define the environment of the Internet.
I didn't say they needed to move to a private neighborhood. I did imply that while in public, they should accept the fact that they're IN PUBLIC.
Very few people live their lives in an entirely private manner. I don't. And I'm pretty big on personal privacy (heck - I don't even use supermarket "club cards"). The people who do tend to live extraordinary lives (and not always in a good way).
I understand how people would feel kind of weirded out by Street View. I'm a little weirded out when strangers snap my photograph in public (not that this happens often - but it has happened at arts festivals and the occasional RenFair). But that's a far cry from thinking it is reasonable for me to impose my will on others who, after all, have done nothing to harm me.
I see criticisms get modded up and/or discussed constantly on this very site. I also see cluelessness trying to be passed as insight and the hurt, martyr reaction when it is rejected. And I see trolls who either think they're Jonathan Swift or are merely anti-social misfits - in both cases attempting to stoke their own egos.
The article is correct in so far as it points out the difference between complaints and criticism. And it describes how valuable valid criticism is. That would be well applied here as many "critics" are simply complainers.
I would agree that Linux gets a fair amount of fanbois unwilling to hear anything negative about their OS choice. And that's dangerous. But they're the static noise that exists in all technology. They're just as easy to tune out as the trolls.
Now, I recognize that ATi hasn't been as "forthcoming" with driver source / documentation as some other companies. This is where the Linux folks can say it's "not my fault." The reality, though, is that it is a barrier to entry, and therefore it is their problem.
Somewhere there's an IRC channel where this post gets linked. "Wow guys," says one Linux hacker, "this dude has a point." "Yeah he does," agrees another. "Let's get right on this. I wonder why we never thought of this before?" In two weeks, a perfectly functional ATI driver is available.
Thanks, Moryath. You've done us all a great service.
I'm pretty sure that there's more people writing online with believable but false names who have really worrying hidden agendas than people using obvious pseudonyms like "Mudflats" or "Publius" or "Speaker for the Dead". The pseudonym itself is a complete red herring.
Certainly. History is littered with examples of famous pen-names and pseudonyms. I've grown up with online communities full of pseudonyms and am quite comfortable with the concept. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't despite pop culture being full of examples (Superman / Clark Kent, Zorro / Don Diego de la Vega, etc.).
My point is that knowing the name of the person who did the publishing doesn't change that... all you have to go on with anyone, whether you know them as "Peter da Silva", "Argent", "Mudflats", or "Sprocket", is their track record.
Sure. But different names can sometimes have different track records. The realization that two names, and associated tracks, belong to the same individual can be very revealing. Although I definitely agree that multiple track records don't always exist.
And, as I noted before, sometimes such things aren't really important to the issues being raised / discussed (i.e. they're good enough points to stand on their own merits). But I think that's a somewhat rare thing. A lot of these things get published as opinion without a lot of transparency to that opinion. What I've seen from our Groklaw example is not only the analysis of the individual known as PJ (and other associates) but a lot of additional material that goes to some effort to make their case transparent and open to criticism.
I wonder if he did it because he expected to find a hidden agenda. Or if he just couldn't stand someone hitting marks when he didn't know who it was (assuming they were hitting marks).
OK. So you got my curiosity up enough to RTFA.:) Apparently he's some champion of old media and despises anonymous criticism. Tag on top of that our former-anonymous blogger ("AKM" apparently) took a couple shots at the good Legislator and he was off and running. Personal vendetta fueled by strong bias. No need to wonder any more.
The evidence that Mudflats had any kind of "hidden agenda" just isn't there, and even Doogan didn't make any such claim, he just went after her for using a pseudonym because he could.
I wonder if he did it because he expected to find a hidden agenda. Or if he just couldn't stand someone hitting marks when he didn't know who it was (assuming they were hitting marks).
There's nothing inherently wrong with using a pseudonym, and NOT using a pseudonym doesn't mean you don't have any hidden bias. I've got a pretty heavy "trail" online, and even if I tossed in my CV and the results of a psychoanalytical exam I suspect that I've got opinions and biases that don't show up on anyone's analysis of all that output. So what? Should you trust me less because you don't know something like... oh, say... I spent a week in San Antonio with the Vice President's secretary...?
I'd like to point out again that the issue is that an obvious published agenda isn't always the whole story. The statement that Mudflat's agenda was clearly available strikes me as being dismissive.
I have no idea on who Mudlfat is or what they wrote. I haven't bothered to even Google them today. So I'm not about to speculate on their agenda. And I'm certainly not going to even come close to speculating on yours (whether the River Walk was involved or not).
PJ and Groklaw I've read. So I could comment there. I should point out that whether PJ is involved with IBM never mattered to me not only because I put little stock in to the claim, but because Groklaw published all its work and made their case publicly. If it turned out that PJ was on IBM's payroll it would do little to discredit the claims made on Groklaw. I'm not sure if this is relevant to Mudflat or not. I'm simply curious (gah - maybe I'll end up Googleing for them after all).
Astroturfing is a real problem, yes, but there wasn't even an accusation of paid bias here.
In no way am I implying that this individual was paid for their opinion. Don't take this as the be-all and end-all of bias. I'm just using that as a pretty easy example of hidden bias. More subtle bias might exist for various other political and / or personal reasons. And they can be just as hidden, but no less influential, as being paid to have an opinion.
The point here is that the obvious bias - the one being expressed - is not always the end of that bias. I find the argument that you made to be flawed on the face of it.
Again - I'm not familiar with the details. I never read anything written by Mudflats. But your comparison to Pamela Jones is interesting. I've read quite a bit of Groklaw. Even if Pamela Jones was somehow connected to IBM's legal team, I don't see it shedding a lot of light on what was published on Groklaw. I assume you're implying that Mudlfats' criticisms were also pretty much stand-alone no matter what their political involvement was?
"Outing" the blogger disclosed some of the biases in her accusations.
Dude, we knew more about her biases from what she wrote in her blog than from knowing her real name.
"Mudflats" biases were on worn on her virtual sleeve, not hidden behind her pseudonym.
I can't comment on Mudflats' biases directly; I hadn't heard of them before this. But in a general sense, sometimes the messenger is as important as the message. A big part of this is that the messenger can have a bias that isn't readily apparent by the message.
A prime example is people paid to deliver a message. It isn't that they've done any analysis of the subject at hand and arrived at the message on their own. It's that someone wants a particular message and have paid them to either craft it or deliver it. Knowing that this artificial incentive exists may be very important in determining the validity of the message. It may provide insight as to why competing factors were discounted or outright ignored when producing that message. At the very least, it provides some reasoning for the support.
It should be noted that this doesn't completely discount the message in question. People with ulterior motives can still raise very valid questions. And those questions should be addressed no matter who raises them.
No. You've missed my point. The two have nothing to do with each other, because they fundamentally solve different problems, even though the solutions sometimes overlap.
I can agree with that. Although I don't believe TPM is presented in that manner all the time. Often, it is touted as the solution to the very same overall issues. In this case, dealing with malware.
I'm sure you don't really believe, with proper consideration, that TPM really ensures that a piece of code does what it claims to.
I never claimed that it did.
Maybe I misunderstood when you said "it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be."
And that's not even touching on whether you can trust TPM working for or against you.
TPM is a tool. It can no more work "for you" or "against you" than your dishwasher.
When I control the dishwasher, the tool is working for me. When someone else is controlling the dishwasher, the tool is working for them. And TPM has absolutely no resemblance to a dishwasher.
Well, given that the comment goes, in the same paragraph, from talking about TPM to talking about buffer overflows, the interpretation hardware seems unreasonable.
Except for the fact that it says we don't need one, the other would be a better approach. Nowhere was it saying they both did exactly the same thing. Context is pretty important here.
This is a bit like saying dealing with icy roads would be a better solution than implementing airbags.
OK. Sure. And there's nothing wrong with that. We're talking about dealing with an underlying problem. There's different ways of dealing with a problem. That some attack it from different angles is expected. That some angles might be better than others is also reasonable.
As for what TPM does... at best, it might tell you who's key signed that code.
Which is a substantial improvement over the current situation, and a useful part of defense in depth. Where's the problem ?
The problem is this quote:
TPM isn't there to prevent buffer overflows and code injection, it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be.
I'm sure you don't really believe, with proper consideration, that TPM really ensures that a piece of code does what it claims to. But the reaction is to start getting in to that mindset - which is wrong. And that's not even touching on whether you can trust TPM working for or against you.
Having said that - this isn't a debate on the merits of TPM. Suffice to say that it's not the same way to attack the fundamental issue. And while it is valid in it's own right, it isn't beyond criticism.
Exactly. And we don't need anything nearly as complicated, baroque, or elitist as 'TPM' or 'Trusted Computing'. Simply designing-in protection from buffer overlows and code injection from the get-go will help a lot.
TPM isn't there to prevent buffer overflows and code injection, it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be.
Again - I don't believe the OP claimed that TPM would deal with buffer overflows and code injection. That's your interpretation. What it does claim is that dealing with those would be better solutions than implementing TPM. As for what TPM does... at best, it might tell you who's key signed that code.
Really, our failure as a nation has been to pretend their viewpoint has merit (everyone is a beatiful snowflake after all) instead of calling those people stupid, and ignoring everything they say.
The problem with that is that there ARE people who think that this view has merit. The very same crowd that spawns these sorts of leaders. The only debate is how large of a crowd this is.
I haven't seen anyone take this seriously. Sure - it gets reported. But it's usually with an overtone of scoffing. Granted - I don't watch FOX News. So maybe they've picked up the "maybe he's right" angle just so they can be different and "balanced."
Having said all that - let's not confuse honoring their right to speak with acceptance that the viewpoint has merit. These folks can go on all they want about divine punishment for mortal sin. I wouldn't force them to shut up for fear that one day I would be told I have to attend their church. Which doesn't mean we can't, you know, call them stupid and ignore everything they have to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. But they did try to get their hands on additional oil fields that happened to be in other sovereign countries. Countries that the US has had strong ties with.
You want to claim this is all about oil, fine. There's more than a grain of truth to that. But you're going to have to pick up all the baggage - not just pick out the few pieces that fit your ideology.
I find it ironic that the Slashdot community makes fun of his "tubes" analogy, considering that every network technician I've ever known has, at some point in his or her life, used the word "pipe" to describe an internet connection.
I just had a helldesk guy hanging out in my office complaining about one of the users. She was telling him how she had used a hard drive for a few years before getting a new one. Then she was moved to that one only to be told to use others. So now she uses multiple hard drives around various locations as she moves from office to office. She was asking if she could get a hard drive she could carry around with her. Turns out, she's referring to the entire computer as a "hard drive" and was actually wanting a laptop.
Just because you use a term, doesn't mean you're getting it right.
Which I doubt he'll care too much about, considering that he's 85. I don't know about you, but if I were 85 where the current life expectancy is in the high 70's, and I had a lifetime pension from the Senate (which he'll likely get to keep now that the conviction has been thrown out), I wouldn't care what anyone thought about my reputation. More than likely, I wouldn't live long enough for it to matter much.
Just to play Devil's Advocate - I'll suggest another possibility. People of power like to think in terms of immortality. You buy a mausoleum. You establish institutions. And if you're a public servant, you consider your "legacy." You want history to record you as a person who stood out in your time in office; even an individual who did great things. Stevens has already had a taste of history (often he's noted as being the longest sitting Republican in the Senate). Surely he would have preferred it if people remembered him that way, not for corruption.
But, let's remember who started it, and not place *all* of the blame on the opponent.
And while we're tracking "blame", let's keep in mind that the whole reason we're involved in Iraq is the Iraqi government. Or, at least, the old government.
Which then I suppose opens the discussion to Iran, the old USSR, and the Cold War.
We'll get to see for ourselves. Or not, since if they go under, who is going to report it? AP news?
Who will report it? Slashdot. TWiT. Ars Technica. Digg. Dozens of other "new media" news sites. Dozens of bloggers and microbloggers.
The only question is whether they will be using the last story from AP or not. If they do, it will likely be for the novelty and historical importance of the event. Not because AP is the only source of news.
It is a common misconception that privacy laws don't apply to places and people viewable from a public location. You also seem to confuse Google's satellite imagery with their Street View service.
Actually - I'm not confusing the two. I understand they're different aspects provided via their mapping service. However, that's the only way I can think that Google has an image of my backyard. I'm curious as to how Google is getting an image of the poster sunning on their deck without a satellite.
As for the misconception that privacy laws don't apply - the devil's in the details. Using a telephoto lense to photograph someone in their bedroom tends to run afoul of privacy laws. Photographing someone's front door is very unlikely to be. I'd question whether someone's yard, with a clear view of a public street, would be reasonably considered "private". I'd advise putting up a fence. Of course - this is in the US. UK laws are likely very different.
What's reasonable is people not wishing to have photographic records of their private moments and private properties posted on Google without their permission. What is the purpose of Street View?
I'm all for that. But property that's viewable from public streets isn't THAT private. And you're mistaken if you think your moment is private when you have it out in public.
Is the purpose to have a photo of every front door and every backyard posted on the Internet?
Do they have a picture of your backyard? They don't have a picture of mine. They do, though, have a picture of my front door. And they have a picture of my roof. If you squint at the satellite photo - you might be able to pick out my deck.
No, the goal - according to Google anyway - is to provide driving directions. Now, who in the world needs to see a photo of me sunbathing on my deck to get from point "A" to point "B"? Street View is unnecessarily detailed for the stated purpose. Thus, Google is either throwing money to the wind collecting useless information, or it has reasons other than those it made public. Take your pick.
I'll go with "wants to have detailed information." Which is perfectly fine. Right up to the point that they're actually invading my privacy - not just pricking my perceived privacy bubble (which is going on here).
How does Streetview help with directions? I've been going out to meet friends at a restaurant before. I pop up the address in Streetview. Come to find out, the location is a strip mall on a busy intersection. I couldn't read the sign but I could identify what the strip-mall (and it's sign) looked like. I knew to get over and jump in to the mall parkinglot without driving past, looking for a restaurant that's hard to see from the road. I've also given directions and a screenshot of my house to friends via streetview ("it looks like this, except it has a blue car in the driveway - oh and move the view down the street a bit and you'll see how the intersection works and the crazy mailbox I told you about").
And, just for giggles, I also checked out my old neighborhood I used to live in. The old house looks very similar. Trees are bigger. But I couldn't see in to the backyard to see if the fishpond I put in is still there. I certainly have no idea if the current owners sunbath back there.
Preston makes it sound so simple and easy to accept. Who among us aren't concerned with information security and the Internet? Preston lists a laundry list of issues that plague the Internet today. Who wouldn't support battling these issues?
The question, however, is who is going to support it. Preston claims that's what the CyberSafety Constituency would do. But do their supporters understand that?
Take some time to view the ICANN mailing list to register comments on this proposal. Note the emails sent in support. Then note how many of Preston's laundry list issues are mentioned. You'll be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't directly (or imply) one single issue: pornography.
Go ahead and look at that list's thread index . It'll help make the form letters stand out. Pornography becomes even more apparent.
Preston claims that this is not an issue of the Mormon church. However, if you look at the proposed initial membership, two things tend to form the familiar pattern: ties to the Mormon Church and pornography.
I'm not sure who Preston thinks she's fooling. Us, or the various people who have written in to support her proposal.
From her most infamous, and probably well-connected, supporter:
In Support Of Cyber Safety Contstituency
* To: cyber-safety-petition@xxxxxxxxx
* Subject: In Support Of Cyber Safety Contstituency
* From: Ralph Yarro
* Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:22:32 -0700
It is amazing that it has taken so long to add a voice of family values, decency, and children's rights to the ICANN family. I am Grateful to all those within ICANN that have recognized and hopefully support this much needed Charter.
Though far from balanced, this gesture will serve as a signal that ICANN cares about the hundreds of millions of Internet users who want to see families needs and concerns considered in the formation of policies and representation.
Please approve this most important voice for decency. It is an important step in the right direction. Thank you in advance.
Ralph Yarro
It's a pitty that even Ralph Yarro, who's business is technology, is so badly misled. That is, if you believe Preston.
I don't.
...all I wanted the internet for was to order a stupid computer book that's not available at my local bookstore... why do I have to be subjected to worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, porn and the base nature of humanity!?
If you're unable to go and order a book online because of all this baggage, you've done something drastically wrong. I do it all the time.
Why do you get exposed to all this baggage? Because when you go online, you are exposed to a world of humans (not entirely the whole world - not everyone has 'Net access). It's all fine that all you want to do is do your thing. But all they want to do is their thing as well. It's a competitive world.
You can walk in down the street in any major metropolis and run in to the same problem; muggers, pan-handlers, con-men. You'll potentially bump in to the desperate and the reckless. The difference between, say, New York and the Internet is that you can only do so much with the laws of physics while you can almost entirely define the environment of the Internet.
I didn't say they needed to move to a private neighborhood. I did imply that while in public, they should accept the fact that they're IN PUBLIC.
Very few people live their lives in an entirely private manner. I don't. And I'm pretty big on personal privacy (heck - I don't even use supermarket "club cards"). The people who do tend to live extraordinary lives (and not always in a good way).
I understand how people would feel kind of weirded out by Street View. I'm a little weirded out when strangers snap my photograph in public (not that this happens often - but it has happened at arts festivals and the occasional RenFair). But that's a far cry from thinking it is reasonable for me to impose my will on others who, after all, have done nothing to harm me.
I'm standing on a public street. Don't look at me! Yeah. That's reasonable.
Thanks for being my straight man.
I see criticisms get modded up and/or discussed constantly on this very site. I also see cluelessness trying to be passed as insight and the hurt, martyr reaction when it is rejected. And I see trolls who either think they're Jonathan Swift or are merely anti-social misfits - in both cases attempting to stoke their own egos.
The article is correct in so far as it points out the difference between complaints and criticism. And it describes how valuable valid criticism is. That would be well applied here as many "critics" are simply complainers.
I would agree that Linux gets a fair amount of fanbois unwilling to hear anything negative about their OS choice. And that's dangerous. But they're the static noise that exists in all technology. They're just as easy to tune out as the trolls.
Now, I recognize that ATi hasn't been as "forthcoming" with driver source / documentation as some other companies. This is where the Linux folks can say it's "not my fault." The reality, though, is that it is a barrier to entry, and therefore it is their problem.
Somewhere there's an IRC channel where this post gets linked. "Wow guys," says one Linux hacker, "this dude has a point." "Yeah he does," agrees another. "Let's get right on this. I wonder why we never thought of this before?" In two weeks, a perfectly functional ATI driver is available.
Thanks, Moryath. You've done us all a great service.
I'm pretty sure that there's more people writing online with believable but false names who have really worrying hidden agendas than people using obvious pseudonyms like "Mudflats" or "Publius" or "Speaker for the Dead". The pseudonym itself is a complete red herring.
Certainly. History is littered with examples of famous pen-names and pseudonyms. I've grown up with online communities full of pseudonyms and am quite comfortable with the concept. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't despite pop culture being full of examples (Superman / Clark Kent, Zorro / Don Diego de la Vega, etc.).
My point is that knowing the name of the person who did the publishing doesn't change that... all you have to go on with anyone, whether you know them as "Peter da Silva", "Argent", "Mudflats", or "Sprocket", is their track record.
Sure. But different names can sometimes have different track records. The realization that two names, and associated tracks, belong to the same individual can be very revealing. Although I definitely agree that multiple track records don't always exist.
And, as I noted before, sometimes such things aren't really important to the issues being raised / discussed (i.e. they're good enough points to stand on their own merits). But I think that's a somewhat rare thing. A lot of these things get published as opinion without a lot of transparency to that opinion. What I've seen from our Groklaw example is not only the analysis of the individual known as PJ (and other associates) but a lot of additional material that goes to some effort to make their case transparent and open to criticism.
I wonder if he did it because he expected to find a hidden agenda. Or if he just couldn't stand someone hitting marks when he didn't know who it was (assuming they were hitting marks).
OK. So you got my curiosity up enough to RTFA. :) Apparently he's some champion of old media and despises anonymous criticism. Tag on top of that our former-anonymous blogger ("AKM" apparently) took a couple shots at the good Legislator and he was off and running. Personal vendetta fueled by strong bias. No need to wonder any more.
The evidence that Mudflats had any kind of "hidden agenda" just isn't there, and even Doogan didn't make any such claim, he just went after her for using a pseudonym because he could.
I wonder if he did it because he expected to find a hidden agenda. Or if he just couldn't stand someone hitting marks when he didn't know who it was (assuming they were hitting marks).
There's nothing inherently wrong with using a pseudonym, and NOT using a pseudonym doesn't mean you don't have any hidden bias. I've got a pretty heavy "trail" online, and even if I tossed in my CV and the results of a psychoanalytical exam I suspect that I've got opinions and biases that don't show up on anyone's analysis of all that output. So what? Should you trust me less because you don't know something like... oh, say... I spent a week in San Antonio with the Vice President's secretary...?
I'd like to point out again that the issue is that an obvious published agenda isn't always the whole story. The statement that Mudflat's agenda was clearly available strikes me as being dismissive.
I have no idea on who Mudlfat is or what they wrote. I haven't bothered to even Google them today. So I'm not about to speculate on their agenda. And I'm certainly not going to even come close to speculating on yours (whether the River Walk was involved or not).
PJ and Groklaw I've read. So I could comment there. I should point out that whether PJ is involved with IBM never mattered to me not only because I put little stock in to the claim, but because Groklaw published all its work and made their case publicly. If it turned out that PJ was on IBM's payroll it would do little to discredit the claims made on Groklaw. I'm not sure if this is relevant to Mudflat or not. I'm simply curious (gah - maybe I'll end up Googleing for them after all).
Astroturfing is a real problem, yes, but there wasn't even an accusation of paid bias here.
In no way am I implying that this individual was paid for their opinion. Don't take this as the be-all and end-all of bias. I'm just using that as a pretty easy example of hidden bias. More subtle bias might exist for various other political and / or personal reasons. And they can be just as hidden, but no less influential, as being paid to have an opinion.
The point here is that the obvious bias - the one being expressed - is not always the end of that bias. I find the argument that you made to be flawed on the face of it.
Again - I'm not familiar with the details. I never read anything written by Mudflats. But your comparison to Pamela Jones is interesting. I've read quite a bit of Groklaw. Even if Pamela Jones was somehow connected to IBM's legal team, I don't see it shedding a lot of light on what was published on Groklaw. I assume you're implying that Mudlfats' criticisms were also pretty much stand-alone no matter what their political involvement was?
"Outing" the blogger disclosed some of the biases in her accusations.
Dude, we knew more about her biases from what she wrote in her blog than from knowing her real name.
"Mudflats" biases were on worn on her virtual sleeve, not hidden behind her pseudonym.
I can't comment on Mudflats' biases directly; I hadn't heard of them before this. But in a general sense, sometimes the messenger is as important as the message. A big part of this is that the messenger can have a bias that isn't readily apparent by the message.
A prime example is people paid to deliver a message. It isn't that they've done any analysis of the subject at hand and arrived at the message on their own. It's that someone wants a particular message and have paid them to either craft it or deliver it. Knowing that this artificial incentive exists may be very important in determining the validity of the message. It may provide insight as to why competing factors were discounted or outright ignored when producing that message. At the very least, it provides some reasoning for the support.
It should be noted that this doesn't completely discount the message in question. People with ulterior motives can still raise very valid questions. And those questions should be addressed no matter who raises them.
No. You've missed my point. The two have nothing to do with each other, because they fundamentally solve different problems, even though the solutions sometimes overlap.
I can agree with that. Although I don't believe TPM is presented in that manner all the time. Often, it is touted as the solution to the very same overall issues. In this case, dealing with malware.
I'm sure you don't really believe, with proper consideration, that TPM really ensures that a piece of code does what it claims to.
I never claimed that it did.
Maybe I misunderstood when you said "it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be."
And that's not even touching on whether you can trust TPM working for or against you.
TPM is a tool. It can no more work "for you" or "against you" than your dishwasher.
When I control the dishwasher, the tool is working for me. When someone else is controlling the dishwasher, the tool is working for them. And TPM has absolutely no resemblance to a dishwasher.
Well, given that the comment goes, in the same paragraph, from talking about TPM to talking about buffer overflows, the interpretation hardware seems unreasonable.
Except for the fact that it says we don't need one, the other would be a better approach. Nowhere was it saying they both did exactly the same thing. Context is pretty important here.
This is a bit like saying dealing with icy roads would be a better solution than implementing airbags.
OK. Sure. And there's nothing wrong with that. We're talking about dealing with an underlying problem. There's different ways of dealing with a problem. That some attack it from different angles is expected. That some angles might be better than others is also reasonable.
As for what TPM does... at best, it might tell you who's key signed that code.
Which is a substantial improvement over the current situation, and a useful part of defense in depth. Where's the problem ?
The problem is this quote:
TPM isn't there to prevent buffer overflows and code injection, it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be.
I'm sure you don't really believe, with proper consideration, that TPM really ensures that a piece of code does what it claims to. But the reaction is to start getting in to that mindset - which is wrong. And that's not even touching on whether you can trust TPM working for or against you.
Having said that - this isn't a debate on the merits of TPM. Suffice to say that it's not the same way to attack the fundamental issue. And while it is valid in it's own right, it isn't beyond criticism.
Exactly. And we don't need anything nearly as complicated, baroque, or elitist as 'TPM' or 'Trusted Computing'. Simply designing-in protection from buffer overlows and code injection from the get-go will help a lot.
TPM isn't there to prevent buffer overflows and code injection, it's there so you can be sure that a piece of signed code is what it claims to be.
Again - I don't believe the OP claimed that TPM would deal with buffer overflows and code injection. That's your interpretation. What it does claim is that dealing with those would be better solutions than implementing TPM. As for what TPM does... at best, it might tell you who's key signed that code.
*holds up a glass of water*
BEHOLD! The Resurrection!
Really, our failure as a nation has been to pretend their viewpoint has merit (everyone is a beatiful snowflake after all) instead of calling those people stupid, and ignoring everything they say.
The problem with that is that there ARE people who think that this view has merit. The very same crowd that spawns these sorts of leaders. The only debate is how large of a crowd this is.
I haven't seen anyone take this seriously. Sure - it gets reported. But it's usually with an overtone of scoffing. Granted - I don't watch FOX News. So maybe they've picked up the "maybe he's right" angle just so they can be different and "balanced."
Having said all that - let's not confuse honoring their right to speak with acceptance that the viewpoint has merit. These folks can go on all they want about divine punishment for mortal sin. I wouldn't force them to shut up for fear that one day I would be told I have to attend their church. Which doesn't mean we can't, you know, call them stupid and ignore everything they have to say.